Court restrains defendants from misrepresenting as HCL employees, orders destruction of infringing materials, and allows amendment of plaint to include newly identified fraudster.
In a significant ruling delivered on August 24, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd, restraining multiple defendants from infringing on its trademarks and passing off fraudulent representations. The judgment also permitted the impleadment of a newly identified defendant involved in orchestrating fraudulent activities under the guise of being HCL employees.
The case arose when the plaintiff, HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd, discovered a scheme involving several individuals misrepresenting themselves as its employees through fraudulent emails, calls, and messages. These defendants were allegedly duping members of the public by offering fake employment opportunities and soliciting money using HCL's renowned trademarks, thereby causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation and business interests.
Following an order dated February 10, 2026, and further investigations including KYC details obtained from SBI (Defendant No. 18), the plaintiff successfully identified an additional individual (proposed Defendant No. 24) engaging in these illicit activities. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to implead this defendant, permitting amendment of the plaint accordingly.
Subsequently, the court issued notices to all defendants, including the newly impleaded Defendant No. 24, directing them to file written statements within thirty days and comply with procedural mandates under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Importantly, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, restraining Defendants No. 20 to 24 and their associates from using HCL's trademarks such as "HCL," "HCL Healthcare," and related logos and variants in any manner that could cause confusion or deception. The defendants were also ordered to destroy all infringing materials, including brochures, pamphlets, stationery, digital files, and other promotional content bearing the plaintiff's marks.
Further, specific defendants (No. 14 and No. 15) were directed to disclose details related to certain mobile numbers used in the fraudulent activities and to block those numbers within stipulated timelines to prevent further misuse.
Justice Singh emphasized the prima facie case established by the plaintiff, the balance of convenience favoring HCL Corporation, and the likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of such injunctions. The plaintiff was also directed to comply with the procedural requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's proactive stance against fraudulent misrepresentation and trademark infringement, providing a robust legal remedy to corporations victimized by impersonation and deceit in the digital era.
Bottom Line:
Impleading of a defendant in a case involving fraudulent misrepresentation, amendment of plaint, and grant of ex parte ad interim injunction to restrain infringement and passing off trademarks.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2), Order VI Rule 17, Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 3, Section 151
HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd v. John Does, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2970422
